Reply With Quote
20% of X >>>>>>>>>>>> 11% of X
Whether the government adds or removes programs it's completely irrelevant to that.
You gave up when you stopped paying attention in math class, tbh.
I see.
So... when the government adds programs over the years, each requiring more revenue, they never get it... Because every existing program is en led to it's existing percentage?
Do you realize what you are advocating?
The government spends far more money per capita than in 1960. If it is double, in constant dollars, then existing programs should expect to get half as much. The government now gets about 500% of what it did in 1960, adjusted to fixed dollars. Population is 172% of what it was then. Per capita, government 500% / 1.72 is 291%. Therefore, equal spending of a program today adjusting for population from 1960, to today, would be only 34% of what it was then. Your 20% from 1960 should only be 6.9% today. Not 11%.
If you still fail to understand, I give up.
20% of X >>>>>>>>>>>> 11% of X
Whether the government adds or removes programs it's completely irrelevant to that.
You gave up when you stopped paying attention in math class, tbh.
You are a total fool.
As the variable x changes in value, so do the results. Variable x is 3 times larger in recent years vs. 1960. Your example only holds true if variable x isn't a variable, but a constant.
20% of 11 = 11% of 20 for example. Added government programs since the 60's increased government spending by a factor of three, per capita. therefore...
if 1960 spending per capita is $1k, 20% is $200. Three time that is $3k and 11% if that is $330.
$330 > $200.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 02-06-2012 at 02:00 PM.
you seem to prefer to emphasize the change in cost in constant dollars without quantifying the growth relative to overall government spending.
do you know what cherry-picking is?
If I used real dollars, the value would be so much more different.
Realize that I am using the OMB 2005 fixed dollars, which are adjusted to make comparisons between years realistic.
do you know what cherry-picking is?
Yes, but how does that apply? Please elaborate on the "cherry picking."
Do you disagree that government spending, per capita, in normalized dollars, has increased by around a factor of three since 1960? Look at all the countless programs added over the last 50 years.
moving the goal posts
I'm not moving the goalpost. I have used the normalized 2005 numbers from the start of this tangent. ElNono is trying to move the goalpost. I am considering dollar value change and population. ElNono thinks 20% of X is always greater than 11% of Y.
Look at the OMB tables. Table 1.3 and others reference "constant FY 2005 dollars"
are you sure? where?
20% of X today >>>>>>>>>>> 11% of X today
That's why it's an ANNUAL comparison.
just wow
Who's twisting words now?
PROPORTIONALLY we are spending LESS
IN TOTAL we are spending MORE
do I win the semantics battle?
Tell me something WC, if X = 100, what would X equal?
Now if we assign X = 1000, what would X equal?
We can assign any value for X and NoNo's statement would remain true.
I'll help you out. By your post, what you're arguing about is whether 20% of X is greater than or less than 11% of 3X. Now lets see if you can begin to build a cogent argument (cherry picking aside).
You paid attention in class!! Bravo!
BTW, it isn't semantics... The government used to spend at a higher rate on children in the 1960's than it does today. It might be a larger amount today, but as a percentage of the overall pie, it's a smaller piece.
They aren't variables. They are rational functions of variables and that is a huge difference that you are too stupid and ignorant to understand. You cannot just label them a single term to dumb it down as you are wont to do and move the figures around willy nilly.
No one on this board agrees with your methodology here and you are just being obstinate. That is fine by me because it further outlines to anyone else who may stumble upon you just how stupid that you are.
You are wasting your time with you napkin math and discrediting yourself in the processas all we have to do now is again point out what you are doing wrong. That you blithely continue doing it anyway underscores how exactly you operate and that you are never to be taken seriously in pretty much any context.
Numerical analysis, stats, circuits, history, linguistics, thermodynamics, economics, government or anything else. I should make a thread with the quotes on things like flywheels, optics, capacitors, rational functions, dating and le it 'WC's Stupid Views.' Have people pe ion to modify the OP with some of your gems and we can have the real shrine to your stupidity.
I think that's WC's issue. Just to make the math, going to simplify the number. If we spent 20% of a $1000 budget on 5 kids in 1960, then we were spending roughly 40 dollars per kid.
Now fast forward to 2005, where our budget is now $5000, and we have instead 10 kids. If we spend 10% of our budget on 10 kids in 2005, it equals out to 50 dollars per child.
What WC seems to be asking is why we are spending an extra amount of money per child today than we were in the 1960's. It seems his preference would be to cut the rate of spending until it matched this "dollars per kid" amount that was used in the 1960's.
Of course, the above would lead us to ask the question: Was the amount spend per child on education and services in 1960s the "proper" amount? What validates the 1960 number as correct instead of the 2005 number?
it's smaller. add one or two generic small government bromides and -- DING! -- fries are done
Why can't you wrap your head around the fact the the budget is 5 times larger than then back then, factoring for population change it's about 3 times larger per capita.
20% of X today >>>>>>>>>>> 11% of X today
That's why it's an ANNUAL comparison.
just wow
We aren't talking about "today" vs. "today." we are talking about a half a century vs. today.
Yes. that's my point. 11% of today's piece of pie is larger than 20% of the smaller pie 50 years ago.
The real question is whether or not the current school funding is being used efficiently or wastefully.
I'm of the opinion that a huge proportion is spent wastefully on construction, exorbitant sports team costs, libraries, and administrative costs. Money in my opinion would be better spent on teachers wages (give smart people an incentive to teach), laptops for every child and internet access.
The education system was designed in the industrial era, and it functions sort of like a factory for children. Since the dawn of the internet and the information age it's faults are becoming quite apparent.
Teaching students history dates and other rote memorization isn't very useful when everyone can do a google search on their phones. I noticed in high school that I could learn more on howstuffworks.com in an hour than a week of class.
Until you apply it to two different years where the X value is different, and still try to say 20% of X1 is larger than 11% of X2.
Tell me something WC, if X = 100, what would X equal?
Now if we assign X = 1000, what would X equal?
We can assign any value for X and NoNo's statement would remain true.
That's exactly what I'm saying. X is three times larger now, than 50 years ago, so 11% of today's X is larger than 20% of X back then.
Why doesn't ElNono get it?
in absolute terms the slice is bigger, relative to the overall cost of government it's smaller. agree?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions